Why?Originally Posted by deano2099
And as you can plainly see here, on this forum devoted to games, a lot more is being discussed.
Why?
And as you can plainly see here, on this forum devoted to games, a lot more is being discussed.
That's basically been my point all along. There ARE people who will pay good money for that, but you'd be an idiot to pay for it if you weren't in to it.
Yep. And I know for a fact there's enough information on here about me that someone could work out who I am fairly easily. I really don't mind. I'm not saying anything I'm not happy to stand behind.
That's really the heart of the "who cares if the government is spying on me; I have nothing to hide" argument, and I have to say it's full of bull and shit.
No, I got plenty of stuff to hide. There are other forums I'll post on where I will be very careful about any links to my actual identity. But I don't really mind at all what the government can find out on my views about videogames.
To quote from the article,
You don't make the same jokes with your grandparents as you do with your drinking buddies. You act differently in different social circles (and if you don't, you're a very boring person.)To me, the “I have nothing to hide” argument basically equates to “I don’t care what happens, so long as it doesn’t happen to me."
[...]
I suggested a different metaphor to capture the problems: Franz Kafka’s The Trial, which depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses people’s information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.
Without anonymity, people you don't necessarily want to see you in a certain way can. Employers, past or present, can pick up on your paper trail. You can be hurt for actions you took that were acceptable in the venue under which you acted. People have been fired or denied employment for nights out, or errant complaints, or simply having the wrong opinions and attitudes.
And for what purpose were these people exposed? For the capricious and the perverse sense of righteousness by a private business? I don't want to be harmed by what Mark Zuckerberg or Bobby Kotick think is important for people to know, because they don't care about me. Bobby Kotick is not an elected representative, and the idea that he - or a chair of people he sat with - honestly conferred over whether they would essentially publish the names of everybody who ever bought a game from them because of mere forum trolling is criminal. If it isn't criminal it should be.
And this, incidentally, is why Google Plus is pretty neat.
But a shitty community is a shitty community. You can't change that with names. TechCrunch recently switched comments to real names only, and they've gone from boring trolling to even boringer fawning and vapidity. Their posts are shit and so it attracts shit.
I have no particular desire to associate my real name with comments on a gaming site. Why should I? What's to be gained? You make a good community with an appropriate environment and ruthless moderation, and people who do want their real name attached will do so voluntarily.
Well, the devs basically said they weren't gonna make the same stupid privacy mistakes as Facebook, and in doing so have essentially built an opt-in system rather than an opt-out system. Night and day difference. Much better.
As I just said, there are places where privacy is useful - and that was the problem with RealID - WoW is still considered a bit unsavoury and you probably wouldn't want a potential employer knowing you were heavily in to it. I wanted them to go ahead with it to see what happened, but I'd have stopped posting on the forums myself. Likewise I don't add anyone except actual friends on Facebook, which is a concept people find hard to grasp for some reason. Whereas my Twitter is public and open to all and in my real name.
A lot of the employment issues you talk about are issues with employment law to me though, not privacy law.
I think you have a misunderstanding on what RealID was: they were re-launching the forums at the same time. Your old posts would not suddenly appear in your real name, and your real name was not accessible in-game. If you posted on the forums after that, you'd be notified that it was in your real name and you'd have the choice of whether or not to expose yourself. I really fail to see how that is criminal.And for what purpose were these people exposed? For the capricious and the perverse sense of righteousness by a private business? I don't want to be harmed by what Mark Zuckerberg or Bobby Kotick think is important for people to know, because they don't care about me. Bobby Kotick is not an elected representative, and the idea that he - or a chair of people he sat with - honestly conferred over whether they would essentially publish the names of everybody who ever bought a game from them because of mere forum trolling is criminal. If it isn't criminal it should be.
To me, the “I have nothing to hide” argument basically equates to “I don’t care what happens, so long as it doesn’t happen to me."
I didn't want to read your post because I knew it'd probably get me angry, and even now I don't know what tack to take because I don't know if you're sincerely missing why this is a threat and a breach of trust, or if you simply don't care about the politics of the situation enough to grok the principles and precedents it represents.
Judging from your opinion about always-on DRM, I'm going with the latter. As such, I'm stepping off.
You're going to buy a game made by these guys? Especially since it seems he's madly lying?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
